Need: Dingy

Pierre, You just dismissed the Leopard 37 powercat as not being a passagemaker after previously accepting it would be when you didnt know the hypothetical boat was a cat.You also dismissed it as a company sponsored publicity stunt. With all due respect, you dont know what you are talking about, most of the South African cats, sail or power are DELIVERED on their own bottoms as a matter of course, in fact the entire moorings fleet of 37ft powercats have done the trip,more than a dozen boats,they refuel twice. It is NOT,i repeat, NOT a publicity stunt. Despite this i am sure that the builders do not pretend it is a Passagemaker, its not. From reading your continued pissing contest with Sabah it seems that you and some others simply cant accept a cat as a passagemaker. I for one would be willing to accept Bebbes definition of a Passagemaker over anyone elses on this thread, after all, he has way more credibility than any of us on this subject. If it fits Robert Bebbes definition, its a passagemaker regardless of how many hulls or what its built of or what the know it alls think.
Steve.

What is it that Beebe pronounced more than a quarter-century ago that has had such lasting impact? He believed a boat capable of voyaging under power should have these features:

A reliable and consistent means of reducing rolling, because crew comfort is a must.
Ability to operate under autopilot, one of the great advantages of an engine-running-all-the-time vessel.
Still-water range of 2,400 nautical miles.
Capability of single-handed operation, necessary for a proper passagemaker to be operated by a husband-wife crew.
An ideal LOA of around 50 feet.
A secure place for the single watch-stander to go outside the pilothouse to observe surroundings.
A balance of good in-port living space and the necessary seaworthiness for ocean voyaging.
Lifeline stanchions 40 inches high in exposed areas.
Beebe's light shone brightest when he delved into the technicalities of ocean-going motorboats. Among his conclusions:

A satisfactory ocean-crossing vessel cannot have a displacement/length ratio (D/L) less than 270 in the 50-foot overall size. The shorter the vessel, the larger the D/L should be.
Speed-length is the most important ratio. Hull speed is only of academic interest, as S/L ratios between 1.1 and 1.2 encompass the practical speeds for power voyaging.
The ratio of the vessel above water to that below water should be in the range of 2.1 to 2.6 for safe passagemaking.
A prismatic coefficient (PC) between .50 and .60 makes the most sense.

Making arbitrary statements about what is or is not a Passagemaker is silly.....Beebe was selling a certain style/type just as we all are....more or less.....Take his Passagemaker and build her with plumb stem and stern, no other changes.....this will not change her weight one bit.....but D/L drops to 230.....oh no....she's no longer a Passagemaker?....actually she will be a better boat, not better looking, but better operating.

Also Passagemaker (Beebe's design) has a published displacement of 27 long tons and fuel capacity of 1200 usg......that's 3.8 long tons of fuel, so were is the D/L figured? Full Load, half load, empty? The D/L changes a lot there.......

My own PL56 design has a full load D/L ratio of 146, and the PL46plus (47'5" LWL) has a full load D/L of 137. I am confidant I can design and build a 50' passagemaker with a D/L of 60-80......but she won't have much accommodation.......

The so called A/B ratio (above water/below water profile) is also utterly meaningless......Seakeeping and stability are derived from beam, two boats of completely different beams can have an identical A/B ratio......pointless. It had some (very little) relevance prior to personal computers being available (Beebe was writing in the 1970's), but has no relevance today.

And we know that "hull speed" is a moving target as well, it changes (according to some) with D/L, longer and lighter boats have a higher "hull speed".......so stating that a passagemaker must travel at a S/L of 1.1-1.2 doesn't work either......

Beebe was more social philosopher than scientist or naval architect, thus his technical statements should be studied in light of the boats he was selling.

If you have to ask where the battle tank philosophy comes into it then we are never here going to be able to explain all of the deficiencies of your boat. I am sure if you had to ask you will be building in even more deficiencies as you go along.

Click to expand...

So you cant actually come up with anything finite so revert to some lame sniping

Sabahcat I think you have probably selected the best boat for your understanding of what you want to do and you probably will do no more than island hop as you say.

Click to expand...

Beside the point
Getting back to the car analogy I used previously, people drive Land Cruisers, Pajero's, Range Rovers, Jeep Cherokees's etc etc on the bitumen year in, year out and probably use them only once a year as an actual 4x4

But just because they dont use it continually as a 4x4 does not mean that it is not one.

Why then have you spent the better part of this thread trying to justify your boat as a true passagemaker when that is not your intent?

Click to expand...

And this is the crux of the matter , as I have stated before.
This is the MINIMUM passagemaker thread
It is not the TRUE, ULTIMATE or BEST passagemaker thread

Again, using a car analogy

This is probably a TRUE, ULTIMATE or BEST 4X4

But that does not mean that this is not one

NO IT AIN'T,
Its another company sponsored publicity stunt to make a product seem much more seaworthy than it is.

Click to expand...

Of course you have some evidence to support this allegation?

I do wonder if I had put up a 50 ft aluminium Mono, with a 55hp single whether you would be objecting as vehemently as you now after you found out that it was a cat that did the trip.
After all, you had no interest in what the vessel was when you supported it as a passagmaker as you clearly made the assumption that it had to be a mono-hulled vessel.

Oh well, sorry to shatter your illusion.

They did of course refuel as most people would so no 5,700 miles.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant
It does not need to do 5700 miles
It need only cross an ocean safely and comfortably on its own bottom and have a range of around 1850 miles (according to Beebe)

It did that just fine
It is a minimum passagmaker
But it is not the ultimate or best passagemaker

Pierre, You just dismissed the Leopard 37 powercat as not being a passagemaker after previously accepting it would be when you didnt know the hypothetical boat was a cat.You also dismissed it as a company sponsored publicity stunt. With all due respect, you dont know what you are talking about, most of the South African cats, sail or power are DELIVERED on their own bottoms as a matter of course, in fact the entire moorings fleet of 37ft powercats have done the trip,more than a dozen boats,they refuel twice. It is NOT,i repeat, NOT a publicity stunt. Despite this i am sure that the builders do not pretend it is a Passagemaker, its not. From reading your continued pissing contest with Sabah it seems that you and some others simply cant accept a cat as a passagemaker. I for one would be willing to accept Bebbes definition of a Passagemaker over anyone elses on this thread, after all, he has way more credibility than any of us on this subject. If it fits Robert Bebbes definition, its a passagemaker regardless of how many hulls or what its built of or what the know it alls think.
Steve.

Click to expand...

Steve try as you may I am not being suckered into this one. I think cats can make fine passagemakers IF designed properly. The problem is that most are not. The Cat's real advantage is speed in the semi displacement range with good fuel burns and better accomodations. When you get to a size of cat that can take advantage of those atributes and deliver the safety and range you are no long even close to a poor man's passagemaker. This thread is about minimal and CAT's have no advantage in the minimal market if there is a market there.

A satisfactory ocean-crossing vessel cannot have a displacement/length ratio (D/L) less than 270 in the 50-foot overall size. The shorter the vessel, the larger the D/L should be.
Speed-length is the most important ratio. Hull speed is only of academic interest, as S/L ratios between 1.1 and 1.2 encompass the practical speeds for power voyaging.

Click to expand...

Why didn't you finish the paragraph on page 52

Beebe: A specialized vessel such as a long thin aluminum yacht could prove me wrong

Pierre
again you have come out with nothing to show why my vessel cannot be called a MINIMUM passagemaker

All I see is fist shaking and foot stomping and glaring at the sky and cries of "it cant be one because we say it cant"

Originally it couldn't be one becauseyou said it didn't have the range DEBUNKED
Then it couldn't be one because you said could not carry a load DEBUNKED
Then you said it couldnt be one because it was to expensive to build even in the backyard DEBUNKED

So come on Pierre, instead of saying it can't because it can't, repeated ad nauseum, try coming out and actually showing WHY it cant.Can you do that?

sabahcat when you want to play the old bait and switch, straw man arguments to bolster a position that I clearly don't agree with and bog down with question after question to to wear me down with endless searches I have to draw the line. I ain't in the business to educate you.

I would very much like to do all of that but this thread is not the place and quite frankly I have to use a great deal of my time to make enough money to afford a real passagemaker of my own for retirement. That is also the reason I backed out of my own thread on designing a boat.

I am quite secure in what I have learned and find this exercise just uterly useless regardless of your taunts to box me in.

Have a good day, for reasons of making money I have to back out of this drivel as Apex1 would put it.

Yeah, OK Pierre
So you choose not to address the issue and instead choose to make up excuses as to why you choose not to
Thats fine, but it makes any argument you may have had lack credibility in my opinion.

I have to use a great deal of my time to make enough money to afford a real passagemaker of my own for retirement.

Click to expand...

And what makes a passagemaker again?
Define it for us please
That was what this thread is about wasnt it?

Once we have a definitive answer as to what a passagmaker is, ONLY THEN can one say what is and what isn't one.

With the current definition it would seem mine is, as is yours but at no stage have I claimed that mine is THE ULTIMATE PASSAGEMAKER, all I have done is say that is a vessel that is capable of passages as per the current definition.
Therefore, it would be fair to say, that it is.

And you, apex and any of the other naysayers have as yet come out with anything definitive to say it isn't, apart from, it isn't.

Yeah, OK Pierre
So you choose not to address the issue and instead choose to make up excuses as to why you choose not to
Thats fine, but it makes any argument you may have had lack credibility in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Get fuked. After your post 358 I give up on you. I have no ego to protect, you win *******, I have no boat in this argument that I am trying to justify to everyone. All I offered was my opinion on how to do this economically and engaging here for entertainment purposes to find a viable option. For you its an egotistical justification on your boat. I understand that, HAVE A GOOD DAY! Get it!

I have no boat in this argument that I am trying to justify to everyone.

Click to expand...

I am not trying to justify anything
I am not selling them
I have no vested interests, unlike some

All I offered was my opinion on how to do this economically and engaging here for entertainment purposes to find a viable option.

Click to expand...

Are you really?
It seems you refuse to acknowledge anything apart from 50 ft metal mono single screw

For you its an egotistical justification on your boat. I understand that,

Click to expand...

No, you are wrong
For me its a justification of any vessel that fits the bill.

I acknowledge your vessel can be classed as a passagmaker
I acknowledge TAD's vessels can be classed as passagmakers
In fact I acknowledge that any vessel that can do a lengthy passage, and be self sufficient for a few weeks realisticaly could be classed as a passagemaker

Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.